Darling: President H.R. McMaster’s Yuge Foreign Policy Blunder

Sad to see Breitbart go full on Never Trump.

KNOW we’re on the right side of history when we are in 100% disagreement with sniveling Never Trump rinos like Kristol.

The NeverTrumpers are happy today.

President Trump, please ditch McMaster.

President Trump Begins Familiar Strategic Process – Pakistan Assigned Ownership of Afghanistan Extremism…

Posted on August 22, 2017 by sundance

A very familiar pattern is emerging as President Trump turns his attention toward solving the ongoing issues within Afghanistan. A very uniquely Trumpian geopolitical strategy based on assigned ownership, economics and self-interest.

Last night as President Trump addressed the nation to discuss the ongoing conflict within Afghanistan he took the first step: Trump assigned strategic ownership to Pakistan:

[…] “The next pillar of our new strategy is to change the approach in how to deal with Pakistan. We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban, and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond.
“Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists. In the past, Pakistan has been a valued partner. Our militaries have worked together against common enemies.

“The Pakistani people have suffered greatly from terrorism and extremism. We recognize those contributions and those sacrifices, but Pakistan has also sheltered the same organizations that try every single day to kill our people. We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars, at the same time they are housing the same terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change. And that will change immediately.
“No partnership can survive a country’s harboring of militants and terrorists who target U.S. service members and officials. It is time for Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to civilization, order, and to peace. (transcript link)

If anything President Trump stated was not the brutal reality the placement of strategic ownership would not work. However, the entire international community knows that Pakistan, including their intelligence service ISI, has a great deal of hidden sympathy toward Islamic extremists within Afghanistan.

Never was that reality more stark than when the international community realized that 9/11 terrorist Osama Bin Laden held refuge inside Pakistan for almost a decade. Within the governing systems inside Pakistan there is a large contingent of Taliban sympathy. This reality has been the 800lb gorilla amid public discussions of international national security for several years.

Last night President Trump called it out, publicly.

This is where those who follow Trump closely will note a familiar pattern emerging.

The Taliban in Afghanistan are to Pakistan, as the DPRK is to China.

Trump has made North Korea China's problem, and now he's made Afghanistan Pakistan's problem.
— Cari Kelemen (@KelemenCari) August 22, 2017

Remember, the solution to the threat that is Kim Jong-un was to assign direct responsibility toward Beijing. In a similar approach, the solution toward eliminating the threat of extremist violence from the Taliban is to assign direct responsibility toward Pakistan. President Trump began that process last night.

However, those who have followed closely will note there’s additional references.

♦When the threat is Sunni Extremism, the problem was/is the Muslim Brotherhood and the enabling of Qatar. Trump assigned responsibility for solving that issue to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council. It is the GCC who are confronting Qatar, not the United States.

♦When the threat is Syria’s chemical weapon, the problem was/is the Assad regime and ISIS. Trump assigned responsibility for solving that issue to Russia; Russia initially refused to solve it, so Trump bombed the shit out of Assad – Russia/Assad took ownership, the chemical weapon use stopped; further action was not needed by the United States.

♦When the threat is DPRK’s nuclear weapons, the problem was/is Kim Jong-un and the enabling China. Trump assigned responsibility for solving that immediate threat to China. It was Beijing who told Kim Jong-un to stand down. Not the United States.

See the pattern? In each example President Trump assigns responsibility. However, the important element is the underlying ownership must be based entirely on truth. In each of the examples the truth was/is that Gulf States/Qatar, Assad/Russia, and China/Beijing were manipulating and enabling the problem behavior. By calling out that truth, each enabler was forced to take ownership and corrective action.

The same approach extends here with Afghanistan. However, the solution is not Pakistan eliminating the Taliban per se’; the solution lies in leveraging Pakistan to force the Taliban into negotiations with the legitimate Afghan government. Like the previous examples of Saudi Arabia and China, Trump has now assigned ownership of this objective to Pakistan.

The U.S. Military can/will engage the Taliban and Pakistan is on notice it better not act to enable the extremists. Cliff Notes:

Additionally, this approach only works if there’s leverage to cajole Pakistan to act. Fortunately creating “leverage” is almost a uniquely Trumpian life-skill. Throughout Trump’s business career he’s been a master at leverage. Now with control of the largest economy and market in the world, he’s got massive economic leverage to generate beneficial national security outcomes.

Saudi Arabia was leveraged by U.S. economics and our commitments to their national security. China was/is being leveraged by U.S. economics and their need to keep access to our markets. So what approach will POTUS Trump use for Pakistan, yep – economics. It’s right there:

[…] “We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars, at the same time they are housing the same terrorists that we are fighting.”…

Who is Pakistan’s biggest regional adversary? India.

[…] “Another critical part of the South Asia strategy or America is to further develop its strategic partnership with India, the world’s largest democracy and a key security and economic harbor of the United States.
“We appreciate India’s important contributions to stability in Afghanistan, but India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States, and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development.” (transcript)

President Trump is smartly focusing on alliances with open democracies in regions where the greatest mutual economic benefits are possible.

♦For the North Korean problem, Japan, South-Korea and India are all economically leveraged against China by President Trump via favorable trade and market access opportunities.
[Note that “bilateral” trade deals are essential in these efforts.]
♦For the Afghanistan problem, India again becomes the economic leverage against Pakistan. China has a great deal of investment in Pakistan, and China also views India as an economic threat to their one-road/one-belt plans.

For those who are worried about expansive military endeavors that will result in death and quagmire I would advise to put your mind at ease. The military is needed as the visible alternative to economic leverage, see North Korea. It is a reference; but military engagement unto itself is not the central tenet or fulcrum upon which the economic leverage is dependent.

The U.S. military is not the leverage, the military helps creates leverage. The leverage itself is economic. Financial interests are always the best leverage to use because inherent within the fundamental principles of economics is ‘self-interest’. Actions taken generate financial benefits; those benefits are direct and immediate to the interests of those generating the results.

From the policy and outlook of trade and U.S. economic engagement, obviously India’s Prime Minister Modi is a much more preferred ally. Both China and Pakistan fully understand the dynamics of this mutually beneficial Trump/Modi relationship and what it can mean for their own economic self-interests.

Finally Afghanistan’s government appears fully aware of the approach.

(LINK)

So what can we anticipate as next steps? Well if the familiar pattern repeats:

Look for Pakistan to attempt to avoid ownership.
Look for President Trump and Secretary Tillerson to keep pulling Pakistan into each discussion point when referencing Afghanistan.
Look for President Trump tweets aimed at creating and affirming the U.S. expectations of Pakistan. Each time this happens the ownership gets stronger.
Look for our diplomatic team to talk about Pakistan helping to solve the problem.
Look for any affirming U.S. signals of warmth and friendship toward India.

These will all be indications of the ongoing strategy. So far, this economic geopolitical approach has worked well with Syria/Russia, Qatar/Saudi Arabia and DPRK/China. No reason not to be optimistic about Afghanistan (Taliban)/Pakistan.

Let’s get out of Afghanistan. Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2013

Wrong!

The NeverTrumpers love McMaster.

He is on the side of the NeverTrumpers McCain, Graham and Kristol.

That isn’t what they are doing. They are going after the Cabal.

Sometimes it seems like Trump is a hostage. Some here think he got the JFK talk.

I don’t know what happened but someone needs to take out the Dem Cabal. That is what Bannon is aiming for..with the threat of helping impeach him if he continues to go left.

Patience.

I predict that the new strategy in “Ghanny” will cause McMaster to resign.

He will not be included in the Generals’ “real time decision making” nor in restructuring the ROE. IOW, he will be so in-the-dark about Ghanny strategy that he can’t leak to his journo-buddies.

Trump should currently be looking for a Rumsfeld clone.

Excuse me, but did not the President say yesterday that he was putting an end to “Nation building” and directing our military to focus on killing terrorists.

How long before the President labels Bannon and/or Breitbart fake news.

And, if he doesn’t resign soon enough, he will be speedily encouraged to resign by having him routinely report “through channels” (AKA: Kelly).

Breitbart is pro President Trump.

They just do not like McMaster.

Bannon tends to hyper-focus. It makes Breitbart unreadable at times.

For example, take the time Breitbart hired Brandon Darby. It was insane. Every article (as I recall it) screamed something about Brandon Darby. I had no idea who he was, and to me it felt like the entire site had lost its mind overnight.

Not too long after Bannon got over his Brandon Darby fixation, he hired Milo Yiannopoulos. Then we had to go through it all again, but this time with Milo as the pathological focus.

Now Bannon’s back at Breitbart, and the hyper-focus is on Trump criticism. Who knows how long it will last. It’s very unprofessional. But I read that when he’s in charge, Bannon rules with an iron fist, so it’s likely to be a long haul.

Donald Trump promised, on foreign policy, to do these things:

1) To defend the territory and citizens of the United States;

2) To not butt into other nations’ affairs (i.e. to not nation-build, as GWB did - after HE promised not to do so after the Clinton debacle in former Yugoslavia - and went ahead and did so anyway);

3) To kill terrorists by the trainload (most specifically ISIS, but certainly not limited to those particular murderous scumbags);

4) To get our allies to pay their fair share - no blank checks, as it were; and

5) To not further endanger our troops by telegraphing how many they are, where they are, when and where they’re going to attack, what they’re going to do (except decimate the enemy), and when they’re going to leave any particular craphole country.

Trump’s speech last night hit on ALL 5 POINTS of that. He hasn’t changed his policy AT ALL. Afghancrapholeistan is Terrorist Central - there are about 20 groups of turbaned, goat-boinking, murderous scumbags either headquartered somewhere in that waste of perfectly good land, or hiding and regrouping there. Trump is going after them, won’t tolerate Pakcrapholeistan hiding the bastards after they attack us (so that they can regroup, lick their wounds and attack us again), is going to get our allies (including Arab/Moslem ones) to help pay for it, and won’t put our troops in more danger than they are already exposed to, by saying how many they are, when and where they’re going to attack and when they’re going to leave.

WTF is wrong with Darling that he doesn’t get this? Did he stop listening to the speech after Trump said, “It was my first inclination to pull out of there, but after sitting in the Oval Office....” ???? Darling is an idiot - either that, or he is addressing another speech on another planet from what I heard last night.

McMaster by extension is Trump. Trump selected him.

I did not hear nation building last night
I heard a repudiation of it and the hint of carrot and stick realpolitik dealing with the taliban and Pakistan

Sorry breitbart but Trump grew up even if you didnt
Pulling the US out of Afghanistan and leaving a power vacuum in the midst of 3 junior varsity nuclear powers likely to be drawn by terrorists into a regional conflicf is just stupid. The nuclear aspect of SWA gives us permanent national security interests to secure, by one means or many

No pie in the sky cut -and -run here

This is no Vietnam.

#2: "Sad to see Breitbart go full on Never Trump."

Sad to lodi90 fall for the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.

It is clearly possible to support the Trump presidency while questioning certain policy decisions. Having to choose between unquestioning support and #NeverTrump is a false dilemma.

It is an injustice to the loyal supporters of President Trump to characterize the questioning of US involvement in Afghanistan as #NeverTrump.

Most sane people would not place a meaningful wager that somehow this time things in Afghanistan are going to be any different. Who would wager their car, or house, or retirement, confident that this time we possess the special secret sauce of victory?

What’s wrong with McFarland?

For all those progressives who rejoiced at the ousting of Stephen K. Bannon from the White House — How do you feel now knowing that Bannon was a strong opponent of a troop surge in Afghanistan? Not so good?

To be fair, the stories I've been seeing here suggest that Bannon and the CIA director had come up with a plan to replace U.S. troops in Afghanistan with a large contingent of military contractors like Blackwater. That plan was even more outlandish than the 50,000+ troops that the neo-con globalists were proposing.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they said to Trump, “we’ll stop investigating your Election win for Russian ties if you increase troops in Afghanistan.”